Every round trip measurement of the speed of light has been on a moving platform. Therefore, there hasn't ever been two identical round trip measurement of the speed of light. Nobody can dispute the statement. The reason is simple. While both points for the round trip are fixed relative to each other, they are moving relative to the center of the earth and to the sun and to the galaxy and so on.

M is a person at the midpoint between A and B so he observes simultaneous arrival of light that simultaneously originated at A and B. m' moved away from the midpoint between A and B so he observes different arrival times for the same light that simultaneously originated at A and B. To most people, it is obvious that the person who isn't at the midpoint will see different arrival times of the light. To Physicists, it means time has no meaning.

In section 9 of the Theory of Relativity, the focus is placed on arrival time instead of origination time of past events. Everyone knows the origination time isn't based just on arrival time. The theory converts different arrival times to a representation of the origination times of the past events. We all know the light traveled different distances. Thus the indications must arrive at different times.

HOWEVER: The theory says the opposite. According to the theory, since the light travels different distances, it will arrive at different times which means the earlier simultaneous events didn't seem to originate simultaneously to anybody who isn't at the mid point. Einstein relativity specifies that: since they do not seem to be simultaneous events, they are not simultaneous events.

This is a thought experiment described in section 9 of the theory of relativity. The false perception is used to change the definition of simultaneous and eliminate the meaning of time. The person's movement is specified to get the person away from the mid point. Then the person's movement is discarded. His known false perception is converted to fact. That means, section 9 of the theory of relativity says, you don't need to actually be correct to be correct. You only need to think you are correct to be correct.

I found that nobody disputes the pivotal importance of section IX The Relativity of Simultaneity in the Theory of Relativity. Section 9 is a very short easy to read section of Albert’s paper and it basically fits on one 8 by 10 page using normal print and spacing. Section 9 is the linchpin section. Without section 9, the theory of relativity is meaningless. Shortly I will provide two links to two different places showing section 9 of Albert’s work.

From here on, it is just commentary.

Regardless of your field of interest or skills, you can easily read and understand section 9 of Albert’s paper if you actually passed the 8th grade. It is very important to have an open mind when reading section 9 of Albert’s paper. Please don’t go in thinking is it either true or false. Go in thinking the facts must support the conclusion. Then form your own conclusion.

I have discusses the theory of relativity with a large number of people including Physicists. Everyone consistently works to move the discussion away from section 9 of Albert’s paper. Very few people attempt to explain the justification for the conclusion of section 9. Most people try to justify section 9 with other sections of the paper. That is, they say that section 9 is correct because the other sections are correct. Then they justify the accuracy of the other sections because section 9 is correct. That is; A is correct because B is correct; and B correct because A is correct. Occasionally people have said they understand the theory but they haven’t read it because they don’t have time. They say they haven’t even read just the short section 9 portion while they argue the validity of that section and the entire paper. NOTE: When discussing this thought experiment, people will try to move away from the problem. Don't let people divert unless or until they address the known false perception used to replace fact. Once the discussion moves away, they have successfully diverted from the problem they can't answer.

Basically; section 9 is about a THOUGHT experiment. That means, the pivotal section of the theory isn’t based on actual experimental data. It is simply based on a philosophical thought experiment conclusion that requires information to be both known and intentionally ignored. Section 9 deals with a hypothetical person on a train. Just as the hypothetical person on the moving train is at the midpoint between simultaneous events A and B on the embankment, we tell him two events just happen. He doesn’t know he is moving. Eventually the lights arrive at different times.

The typical explanation says he has two options.1) the trigger events happened at different times so they aren’t simultaneous.2) the trigger events happened at the same time but the light traveled at different speeds.Since C is constant, the only choice is option 1.

However; as always, I come in and say it is a trick question. There is a third option.3) The light events happened at the same time. Light travels at the same speed from both points. Thus, the person on the train is moving. Nobody addresses the issue that the hypothetical train passenger in the thought experiment would say the events are simultaneous when he knows the facts. The use of the term trick question is important to help people have a clear mind when reading section 9 of Albert’s paper.

- Here is another trick question for old timers. How many groves are on one side of a 33 1/3 RPM record that last 2 minutes. Before going to any formula, think about the grove on a record. It is one grove that goes around and around.- If a game baseball game is called after 5 innings because of rain, how many outs were there? Many people will go to the formula 3 times 5 = 15. Actually it is 6 outs per inning (3 each side) making it 30 outs after 5 innings.- One of my favorites is: If a bear walks past a house with all 4 sides facing south, what color is the bear? To determine the color of the bear, you must first determine the location of the house. I told you where the house is located.- My very most favorite trick question. When indications of simultaneous events don’t arrive at a person at the same time, what does it mean? To most people it means the person isn’t at the mid point between the events. To a Physicists, it means time has no meaning.

Before reading the short section of Albert’s paper, you might find the short video of value. It shows how the first person determined the size of the earth based on shadows and sticks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8cbIWMv0rI

Now, please go to one of the two following links to read just section: IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity from: Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html or http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einste...Relativity.pdf

The first link goes direct to section 9 of Albert’s paper. The second link goes to Albert’s complete paper. Page through using the up and down arrow next to the page numbers on the control bar.

After you read section 9, The Relativity of Simultaneity, then you might be ready for some questions. - For section 9 to be valid, is it necessary for the train to be moving? Yes is the only answer. - For the hypothetical train passenger to think the events aren’t simultaneous, can he be aware of all the facts? That is; can he be aware that the train is moving. No is the only answer. If he knows he is moving, then he would be able to determine a reason for the different arrival times of the simultaneous events.- Based on the above, is it remotely possible that the simultaneous events are simultaneous since the hypothetical train passenger in the philosophical thought experiment was specifically required to be mistaken as a result of a lack of experience and knowledge? Yes, it is possible. It is more than possible. It is the only choice.

SECTION 9 Examined in detail.

We have the embankment. The train is miles away and won’t go past the embankment for sometime.

A------------------------M-------S1-------S2--------B > this is the embankment at velocity 0

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A1>>>>A2>>>>A3>>>>>> Light from lightning strike at point A<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<B3<<<<<B2<<<<B1<<<<< Light from lightning strike at point B

On the embankment we have the two simultaneous events at A and B. We have the M for the man at the Mid point between A and B. We have two sisters on the embankment. The sisters are so much alike they look like twins, so we will call them twin sister 1 and sister 2. I suppose the man and the twin sisters don’t get along because they are standing apart. Shortly after the simultaneous events happen at A and B, some light from B arrives at Sister 2. That is because she is closer to B. Then the light from B arrives at Sister 1. Then the light from A and B arrive at the man at the Mid point between A and B. Then the light from A arrives at Sister 1. Then the light from A arrives at sister 2. All this is as expected. The sisters aren’t at the mid point so the lights arrive at different times. I can’t see how anybody could dispute the scenario. In fact; in all my discussion, nobody challenges these results. Nobody claims the simultaneous events aren’t simultaneous because the sisters, who aren’t at the midpoint, don’t observe them as simultaneous.

The train approaches. Get ready. Now, the train points A and A’ are aligned. Points B and B’ along with M and M’ are aligned. Even though A/A’ and B/B’ and M/M’ are in different frames, they are comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.

A----------------------------M-------S1-------S2--------B > this is the embankment at velocity 0

The man on the train is traveling with sister 3. She is so much like sisters 1 and 2 that they must be triplets. They are riding on a very modern train and don’t know they are moving. They don’t feel the bumping and don’t hear any noise. They must have been distracted and weren’t aware that the train left the station sometime ago.

The lightning strikes A and B and A’ and B’ at the same time. For relativity to apply, we must have 4 light events instead of just 2. Although we go through just addressing the two lightning strikes on the embankment, the exact reverse applies. After the lightning strikes A and B, the train moves. Just as triplet sister 3 is aligned with triplet sister 1, that is the time that both sisters and the man at the midpoint on the train at observe the light from point B.

Remember earlier we said: Even though M and M’ are different, they are comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them. The same applies to the triplet sisters. Even though S1 and S2 are different from S3, when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.

Some time later, both lights simultaneously arrive at the man on the embankment. Just as triplet sister 3 is aligned with triplet sister 2, that is the time that both sisters and the man at the midpoint on the train at observe the light from point A.

Thus we have three comparable cross frame locations.

M and M’ are cross frame comparable locations. Even though M and M’ are different, when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.

Sister 3 and 1 alignments are cross frame comparable locations. Even though sister 3 and sister 1 are different, when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.

Sister 3 and 2 alignments are cross frame comparable locations. Even though sister 3 and sister 2 are different, when they are aligned, they represent comparable locations across frames. Their movement doesn’t distinguish them.

Are you seeing the trend here. It is perfectly correct for Sister 1 and Sister 2 to understand that the arrival times are different for lights from A and B. Since we established that the points where sister 3 aligned with sister 1 is comparable, and, where sister 3 and sister 2 aligned is comparable, then sister 3 understand the reason the lights from events that happened at points A and B are simultaneous even though they arrived her locations at different times. So we have a disconnect. The Physicists on the train needs to listen to the three women instead of listening to Albert who is standing on the embankment watching the world go by.

CONCLUSION:

Section 9, The Relativity of Simultaneity is the pivotal section of Albert’s work. It is based on a carefully specified condition that must deliver a false illusion. The person on the train must be moving but can’t be aware of the movement. This is required to facilitate the mistaken conclusion that the cross frame simultaneous events changed from simultaneous to not being simultaneous. Without the specified error, time retains meaning. With time having meaning, the entire paper goes away.

Many very brilliant well informed people have written excellent papers about relativity. Most do a wonderful job of explaining the conclusions of the theory based on the assumption that section 9 is correct. Most but not all Physicists accept Albert’s paper as correct. Even though they do, I still haven’t found any to address my challenge to section 9.

Paul Marmet, Ph. D. (1932-2005) was a brilliant Physicists. He had a brilliant career and worked in many areas. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html He wrote many papers. Some of his work also challenged the theory of relativity. His approach was different than mine. In the about 100 years of the theory of relativity, many brilliant Physicists didn’t accept it from the first day it was published until it was accepted many years later. Since it was accepted, many brilliant Physicists like Paul Marmet, Ph.D. continued to challenge it. I simply took a different tact to challenge the theory. I examined the theory and found the pivotal section that is based on an illusion becoming fact.

I am looking forward to the day when someone will give a valid explanation for a specified false perception to replace fact, or; for the acknowledgment that facts can’t be replaced by a specified false perception. After that day, I can move on to other things with either finally having a better understanding of the concept that logic doesn’t apply in physics; or, Physicists can move on to bigger and better work dealing with things moving through time and space instead of thinking that time and space bend to fit around things.

Addendum: Do physicists have open minds?

My concern is to improve science. In one discussion I was pointed to very good paper that goes into detail explanations about the conclusion of the theory. Regardless of the section 9 problem, the paper is very good work.

http://www.oberlin.edu/physics.../Einstein/SRBook.pdf

In that paper I found;quoteNew experiments are being performed every day, and new explanations are being devised every day. Perhaps someday a reliable experiment inconsistent with relativity will be performed. When that day arrives scientists are prepared to abandon relativity, just as Einstein was prepared to in 1921

However, relativity is far more likely to be modified than completely overturned.Quote

I hope that is the case. I found substantial examples of the results of the theory. I didn’t find anything that addresses the section 9 problem. I doubt it will be replaced with another form of relativity. I suspect some form of proximity factors that include very inclusive consideration of complete data beyond things like Doppler on a super scale. That is for the experts in many areas to address.

Addendum: All frames aren't equal.

The earth and a train aren't equal. Two trains are equal. When the Albert says the train and embankment are interchangeable, that isn't correct. It is obvious that the train can't be considered to be interchangeable with the earth. So what conditions allow the interchangeability of two frames?

The origination events must have the same relationship with both frames for the frames to be interchangeable. There must be comparable conditions. Two lightning strikes in one frame don't translate to the other frame.

To be interchangeable, - there must be 4 simultaneous light origination events, 2 in each frame. Or,- points A and A' must be truly the same. Or, - they must be isolated from either frame.

None of this alters the original problem. The arrival time doesn't determine the origination time.

Addendum: All light measurements relative to ground, none relative to other frame.To review experiments addressing the theory of relativity, mostly the speed of light,

When reviewing that site, I realized we have an assumption I had missed before. As far as I can determine, all experimental data measuring the speed of light has basically been done relative to the earth. That is; I can’t find any experimental data relative to the train in Albert’s thought experiment. Thus; we accept without proof that light is going C inside the train. It seems that we only know that every experiment shows it constant relative to earth. A comment that the sprague light race won’t work prompted me to think of the above issue. We have all said the speed of light is C relative to the train. If that is so, then light from a flashlight on the train is going C if the flashlight is held both inside and outside the train window. Suppose the speed of light isn’t C relative to the train. Suppose it is bound within it’s relativity to the earth.

I searched and can’t find any true moving frame experiment measuring the speed of light other than those where the earth is the moving frame. Has the MM experiment or any comparable measurement been done on a train or in an airplane or on a spacecraft? Each adds variables. Perhaps the spacecraft or a high flying airplane moves it too far from the proximity relationship with the earth. Please don’t focus on the other variables. Please focus on the search for proof that the speed of light is C relative to another cross earth frame such as the train.

Copyright All rights reserved.

100% accurate universal time clocks

Thinking about how to making 2 or more 100% accurate synchronized universal time clocks could benefit from thinking outside the box while looking for something new out of something old. Literally, when we think of a clock, we think inside the clock box for a movement to monitor. A very old way of looking for constant or predictable movement is to look at the stars. With modern technology, and data collection and sharing methods, we can observer various stellar events from the past to project future conditions. One stellar clock program and data set can be loaded into 2 or more stellar clocks with cameras and update connections between all devices. The dynamically updated programs and data allows all the stellar clocks to accurately calculate and display the common device time and positions of the clocks regardless of their land or space based position within their known stellar data array.

The data consists of historical star maps with position and transition activity. It also tracks the positions of other stellar clocks. The programs calculate the projected position and conditions of various stars or devices any specified time. The update links between the devices allow dynamic data and time synchronization confirmation among devices.

This tool delivers one common ubiquitous time that progresses or builds upon it’s self at a constant rate.

This is an updated description of processes defined in 2007 Copyright material.

The Classical laws Of Physics are “considered to be wrong or incomplete”. Since our knowledge of forces and conditions is incomplete we have Einstein’s Laws to replace Classical Laws. We know Einstein relativity has a fundamental flaw that results in a mathematical impossibility with time stopping and gravity going to infinity. Thus an examination of the Laws of Physics is on order.

It is widely accepted that Einstein specifies that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and the speed of light is the same everywhere. Actually that isn’t what Einstein says. His paper says:

The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.

The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

Einstein say: A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

The impact of disregard of influences:

A limited Domain of Applicability is established through exclusion of known information. Inclusion of known information expands the Domain of Applicability but invalidates any theory that requires information to be disregarded.- Conclusions from experiments must not exclude relevant information.- A statement may seem to be basically accurate when specifically limited to omit data.- Consideration of a statement must address the implicit as well as the explicit.

Galileo’s, Einstein’s and Classical relativity laws of motion:

Perhaps Galileo’s Law is incomplete or misunderstood. Thus, the need to clarify or expand to be inclusive. A comparison of the Classical, Einstein and enhanced Classical relativity laws gives:- Galileo’s law: All speeds are relative to the speed of the observer.- Einstein’s law: All speeds except space and time are relative to the frame of reference.- Classical relativity law: All objects are moving and all velocity of observable objects can be measured relative to the velocity and perspective of any number of observers in various locations and the results from observer to observer must correlate. Note: this law includes light, space, and time.

My enhanced specifications are inclusive for an unlimited Domain of Applicability:

In an inclusive Classical hierarchy of Relativity (ChR),

- The Laws of physics are the same everywhere under all conditions. There is no get out of the laws free card. The laws of physics are the same everywhere regardless of the movement of the frame of reference.

- There is no such thing as a stationary object. Nothing remains at rest at a point in space at any time from moment to moment. There is such a thing as one thing being basically stationary relative to another object. Thus, ChR says no speed is absolute. Speeds are relative to frames in a hierarchy.

- An observer inside a box has endless xyz coordinate that aren’t obstructed by a wall or lack of direct visibility. However; a frame’s xyx coordinates have internal boundaries. A flipped coin inside a car moves as compared to the car. A flipped coin on earth outside the car moves as compared to the earth. It is visible to the car observer and the earth observer. The coin motion in the car is directly compared to the car and indirectly or additively compared to the earth.

- When we observe any event, we are watching the results of what happened sometime ago.

- The movement of objects have both a direct as well as an indirect relationship or impact on the movement of others.

- The movement of objects in time and space can be consistently measures and accurately predicted because time and space are constant.

- All the variables must be included to accurately project the outcome. Size, movement and structure of one or more objects are variables that impact the universal magnetic field and other objects will be impacted by those variables.

- As any disturbance in the universal magnetic field originates, travels and impacts a target, there is an equal and opposite reaction throughout the path.

- Time is NOT relative to a place, object or event. All things exist at moments in time relative to all other objects. Events that happen at the same time in any frame are simultaneous regardless of frame of observer.

- Any movement of any objects in time relative to any movement of any other objects in time does not change time or space, it merely changes the location or relationship of the objects to any point of reference at a prior time.

- The effect of acceleration may simulate the effect of gravity, the cause of each is very different. Similarity of effect does not necessarily result in similarity of cause. Acceleration is not the same as gravity. It may temporarily be confused with gravity for the inexperienced observer.

- Optical illusions will or may cause distant or moving objects to seem to be different.

- When an object’s state of rest or motion is changed in relation to a hierarchy of relative, it may or will deflect to some extent during the transition time.

- Identical object at rest relative to or sitting on other moving object will typically remain identical.

- Transition deflection occurs when changing the speed of moving objects and the deflection will vary among objects and may remain or reverse when transition is completed.

- Selection of a body of reference must include consideration of the hierarchy of relativity. Space and time do not change. The locations of various objects change in time and space.

- Speed of objects are additive within their classical hierarchy of relativity

- The Speed of light is additive to the movement of the frame of reference where it is emitted and where it's speed is measured.

- An electromagnet produces a field that is similar to gravity. Gravity does exist.

- Gravity will cause the direction of travel of Light energy to bend.

- Lighter objects moving in space do not simply roll down hill to heavy objects moving in space.

- Energy dissipates as it travels.

- Light energy dissipates.

- The dissipation of energy and light energy can be measured.

- There is proof of a dynamic changing universe. That doesn’t mean the universe expands.

- The speed of light is relative to all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.

All frames equally applies to the laws of physics being the same in all frames. It also applies to the speed of light being the same in all frames.

- The choice of frames doesn’t alter the conditions of events in any other frame. Thus; all frames are equally valid in that the laws of physics and conditions of events are the same in all frames and all observers in all frames might be equally able to gather the same data from the different observational frame or vantage point

- A choice of equally valid frames of reference doesn’t change the laws of physics or actual conditions. A choice of frames DOES alter the ability to observe. A person on earth can’t observer the far side of the moon. The choice of frames doesn’t change the distance between points or the time to travel between points.

- The choice of frames doesn’t change the distance between points or the time to travel between points in the frame where the points are tied to. An inch in one frame is an inch in any frame. A second in any frame is a second in any frame.

- The motion of an object isn’t changed just because it is observed from different frames.

This may be the biggest area of discussion.

Falling ball with sideways moving platform:

Consider one of the oldest examples of demonstrating relative motion. This demonstration uses one ball, 2 video cameras and one moving platform. The platform moves sideways at a constant velocity. One camera is attached to the platform while the other video camera is situated on the floor. Both cameras are continually operating and showing their images side by side on one or more screens.

Standard demonstration:

The platform is moving and the ball is released from a perch. The display from the camera on the platform shows the ball fall straight down. The display from the camera on the floor shows the ball fall in a curve line. Both videos show the real, correct motion of the ball. An observer looking at the video screen can only determine that one image is of a ball falling straight down and other image is of a ball falling in a curved path.

Informed variation demonstration.

In my variation, tools are used to gather information. Lines are marked on a background glass behind the falling ball. The marks show a top point mark A, a bottom mark B, a straight line between marks A and B. The line between the marks has standard ruler marks showing the length of the line between marks A and B. Velocity meters and event timers are situated on the moving platform. Additional velocity meters and event timers are situated on the floor. The event timers record the time the ball arrives at marks A and B. The velocity meters show the velocity of the ball. The platform camera shows the complete viewing area including the perch where the ball is situated before it is released, and the mechanism that triggers the release of the ball. The glass background allows the viewers to see a mirror on the wall behind the setup. The Mirror has length marks. The reflected image shows the complete setup including the both cameras. The floor camera shows the complete view of the platform with the camera, the ball perch, the marks on the background glass, the wall mirror, the wheels the platform rides on, measurement marks on the floor and back wall mirror showing the distance the platform moves, the motor and gears driving the platform and the meter showing the velocity of the platform and so on. The Computer analysis of both screens is performed to measure the events times of the ball arrival at marks A and B as viewed by both cameras.

In the standard demonstration, lack of information prevents an informed conclusion. The second demonstration with the marks and measurements and the velocity meter and the mirrors and the motor and the gears and so on, the video observer can make an informed conclusion. Observers can see the split screen and the data to see the ball velocity as considered from both vantages. Both side images and data show the ball velocity, travel time and travel distance as compared the platform is the same as viewed by both cameras. Likewise, the ball velocity, travel time and travel distance compared to the floor is the same as viewed by both cameras.

Alternative suspended in air ball demonstration:

I provide another demonstration that also uses one ball, 2 video cameras and one moving platform. The platform moves up in this demonstration instead of sideways as in the other demonstration. One camera is attached to the platform while the other video camera is situated on the floor. Both cameras are continually operating and showing their images side by side on one or more screens. Both record the activity from 1 hour before the demonstration to 1 hour after the second demonstration.

In the first demonstration, the background information is hidden. One side of the video shows a falling ball. The other side shows magic ball that is suspended on air with a platform that moves up the ball. In the second demonstration, the complete information as above is included in the side by side video images. The first demonstration doesn’t allow an informed decision. The second demonstration allows all observers to know the ball is falling.

In the sideways moving ball, the Lorentz contraction supposedly has a ball that is the simultaneously the same height but different width in both videos. In the suspended in air demonstration, the Lorentz contraction supposedly simultaneously has the ball different heights but the same width in the different videos. The supposed difference is as a result of the math induced error from using frame independent light speed with relative time.

This demonstration shows that the observation of the motion is frame dependent. The laws of physics don’t change from frame to frame. Both frames are equally valid for consideration of the laws of physics. The distance the between mark A to mark B on the backboard is the same regardless of viewer. The length of time the ball falls from mark A to mark B is the same regardless of viewer. The velocity the ball falls from mark A to mark B is the same regardless of viewer. The distance and velocity from observed moving point A when the ball is released to moving point B where the ball arrived is greater than the distance and velocity from the A and B marks on the backboard.

Observers viewing from the moving camera and from the stationary camera use the one and only same laws of physics. Both can determine the distance between mark A and B on the moving platform. Both observers can calculate the distance mark A and B moved between the time the ball was released and when it arrived at mark B.

There isn’t a preferential frame for the laws of physics. There is a preferential frame for considering the motion among moving bodies.

As I have said all along and as is now in wiki:

A change in the choice of this coordinate system does not change an observer's state of motion, and so does not entail a change in the observer's observational frame of reference. This viewpoint can be found elsewhere as well. Which is not to dispute that some coordinate systems may be a better choice for some observations than are others.

Review the last line: some coordinate systems may be a better choice for some observations than are others.

- The operative included words are: better choice for some observations,- The choice for observations doesn’t alter the laws of physics. There is NOT a preferential frame for the laws of physics.

The laws of physics being the same in a frame doesn’t mean all frame are unconditionally the same without respect to the laws of physics. All frame aren’t equal but the laws of physics apply equally in all frames. A train and a car and the earth and the sun are all different but the laws of physics are the same in all of them.

Thus, the laws of physics are unconditionally the same in and across all frames at all times. All frames aren’t equally valid as being the same size, shape, mass, color and have the same motion. Different conditions in and across frames doesn’t make the laws different.

I show two primary variations of the demonstration. In version one we use a ruler, paper and a marker. In version 2 we use 2 markers and paper.

Version 1, paper ruler and marker

1 - Attach markers on a rules:- Attach one marker at the 1 inch mark on the ruler,- Attach one marker at the 2 inch mark on the ruler,- Attach one marker at the 3 inch mark on the ruler,

2 - Place the ruler on the top left part of the paper so the markers make marks on the paper.

3 - Move the ruler with the markers diagonally down and along the paper so there are 3 diagonal marks on the paper from the left top to the middle bottom.

4 - Hold the ruler while moving the paper to form 3 diagonal lines from the middle bottom of the paper to the top right of the paper.

5 - You have three V shape marks on the paper. - The left side of the V shape is with the moving ruler frame,- The right side of the V shape is the moving paper frame.

6 - Measure the distance between the marks to find the Lorentz Contraction.

You can’t find any contraction with either frame moving.

In the first case, you have the RULER move. In the second case, you have the PAPER move. In both cases, there was a frame that was considered to be stationary and a frame that was considered to be moving. You can’t find the Lorentz contraction in either results. You do find Classical Mechanics and the Galilean transformation are accurate in both results.

Version 2, paper and markers.

1 - Place the paper on a flat surface.2 - Align both markers to be as though they are one marker with two points to mark on the paper. If you hold the markers in one hand and move them sideways, you will have two parallel lines

____________________________________________________________

3 - Hold both makers and move the MARKERS to form a large double V on the paper.

4 - Turn the paper over.

5 - Hold both makers and move the PAPER to form a large double V on the paper.

In the first case, you have the MARKERS move. In the second case, you have the PAPER move. In both cases, there was a frame that was considered to be stationary and a frame that was considered to be moving. You can’t find the Lorentz contraction in either results. You do find Classical Mechanics and the Galilean transformation are accurate in both results.

You can’t find a Lorentz Contraction in either demonstration.

In the Galilean Transformation, time, distance, and speed is constant within frames with speed additive across frames.

In the Lorentz Transformation contraction, time, distance and speed is constant within frame with time and distance variable across frames.

You can’t find a Lorentz contraction in either demonstration.

Which object is moving in deep space?

31, Jan 2011, Copyright Don Edward Sprague

Consider imaginary things in deep space without capability to see other stuff. Since they are so isolated, there is no motive to gain information. The discussion is basically meaningless. Let’s give motive. On one thing, there is some food. On the other is a hungry person. The hungry person has all sorts of tools but no food. If there were just a way to get the food from the other thing. Now there is a goal and motive to determine the motion. The person can use methods that are used on a pool table. The person can propel an object to cause the food to be knocked off the other thing in such a way that it is propelled to the person planet. The single motion of one or the other requires different trajectory of initial propelled object to cause the desired trajectory of the food. Compound motion of both things requires another trajectory. It takes testing experience to eventually arrive at the correct actions to get the food.

Copyright Don E. Sprague 2011 All rights reserved.

Slowing of Pioneer 10 solved. It seems that the speed of two probes slows by about 6 mph per century.

The science community claims the slowing of Pioneer 10 is explained by the electric universe. Then they go on to state that they don’t know how it all works. While Classical hierarchy Relativity does explain the electric universe, the electric force is not the cause the slowing of the craft.

The cause of the slowing of the space craft in distant empty space is the fact that the empty space isn’t empty. There is thin stuff out there. The stuff causes drag or resistance. The density of the stuff in quasi empty space can be calculated based on the surface and speed of the space craft. The stuff that causes Pioneer 10 to slow is some of the same stuff that causes Interstellar reddening.

Some might call it missing matter. It isn’t missing, it has just been ignored. The slowing of the space craft makes it harder to ignore the reality of the thin stuff in space.

[quote]Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of nature. Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft, said: “We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and so far nothing works.”[/quote]

[quote]Research to be published shortly in The Physical Review, a leading physics journal, will show that the speed of the two probes is being changed by about 6 mph per century - a barely-perceptible effect about 10 billion times weaker than gravity. Scientists initially suspected that gas escaping from tiny rocket motors aboard the probes, or heat leaking from their nuclear power plants might be responsible. Both have now been ruled out. The team says no current theories explain why the force stays constant: all the most plausible forces, from gravity to the effect of solar radiation, decrease rapidly with distance.[/quote]

Empty space that isn’t empty places a constant drag or slowing of the space craft. If the craft direction were to change or reverse, the empty space that isn’t empty drag would cause the same slowing in any direction.

Copyright Don E. Sprague, 01, June, 2011

- Einstein Train thought experiment.

Einstein vs the most significant aspect of the CERN OPERA experiment is the rigor.

For OPERA- Very accurate determination of location and time of the event was attempted.- Very accurate determination of location and time of observation was attempted.

For Einstein’s train thought experiment,- Event time and location determination is was specifically prohibited.- A person’s eyes detect just the observation time of difference events— that occurred at some unknown time— that occurred at some unknown location.- The difference in arrival time would be less than a second— with a train going thousands of miles per hour— with the lights within visual distance.

Even with the OPERA rigor, the data doesn’t match prior experiments sending neutrinos through earth. The OPERA error with rigor is small compared to Einstein’s significant error from specifically prohibiting rigor and use of known data.

The OPERA experiment was repeated over 3 years. Extremely accurate measurements were made. Precise location of the emitter and receiver was measured and checked and plotted. Precise synchronization of the emitter location clock and receiver clock was repeatedly performed. They do not use Einstein synchronization of moving a clock slowly or reflecting light once between mirrors. They do not follow Einstein's statement: “We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following [that is (b2)–(b3)] relations are universally valid”. Constant time and constant space or distance tools were used to measure random occurring events at moving locations. The entire experimental field motion is carefully addressed.

Einstein specifies the TRAIN is moving but the train passenger considers it to a motionless TRAIN frame regardless of the real TRAIN motion.

The experiment is similar to Michelson–Morley experiment in that the experiment was conducted throughout the day and year. That compares to the MM rotating table. The speed of the neutrinos remained constant within a range as compared to the earth regardless of the direction of earth’s almost uniform or constant travel. This shows that the neutrino speed is almost constant in the almost constant conditions of the almost constant frame where it is measured. The work is being done in a frame with compound motion as in classical hierarchy relativity. It is not a static or inertial frame experiment as in Einstein relativity.

Using the OPERA precision, we need to repeat the Einstein train thought experiment in section 9 of his paper. Oh yes, that is what I have been suggesting for years. Einstein claims time is relative because the train passenger does NOT know the train moved between the light. With the precision of OPERA, the train passenger will knows he is on a moving train. Or, the OPERA results could be explained using Einstein techniques. When Einstein can not explain an event time or location, he simply reverse engineers a formula and value of variable time and space to account for measured event conditions.

Without conducting a repeat of the train imaginary experiment, we know that Einstein time varies to a singularity fundamental flaw. The flaw begins with section 9 where he claims that an uninformed person, who doesn’t use rigor in experiments, is correct because he thinks he is correct. He doesn’t know the distance to the lights. He doesn’t know the event time. He doesn’t know something as basic as the train is moving. He only knows the light arrive at different times

Einstein specifically requires that the train motion is NOT considered by the observer on the train. Einstein claims the train passenger doesn’t know the train is moving so it isn't moving. Then, he uses that first mistake to claim that the distance between emitter and observer doesn’t change between event time and observation time.

Einstein claims the observation time dictates or alters the event time and location.

In a repeat of Einstein's train experiment and in the OPERA experiment, the event time and location is known by all observers. In both experiments, the arrival time and location doesn't alter the event time or location.

Einstein explained why an illusion looks to be other than reality. We know that a fan blade seems to disappear with speed. We know that a strobe light makes the moving fan blade seem to magically stop moving. A rotating disk with black and white lines from the center seems to be a gray disk. A strobe light reveals that the disk is black and white lines.

Einstein is known to have a fundamental flaw that ends in a singularity. The end point is connected through a path back to the beginning point which is section 9 of his paper. The train thought experiment is simply an explanation of an illusion. It is not an explanation of variable time.

Section 9 is wrong. Time is constant. Section 20 is wrong. Gravity and acceleration are different. The illusion in 9 and 20 are simply illusions. The conduct of the CERN OPERA experiment is only possible through the use of constant space and time with motion of light speed being relative to the frame or field such as earth.

Copyright 24 Sep 2011 Updated 02 Oct 2011

Eddington and other eclipse photos and calculations prove ChR refraction.

Refraction is the change in direction of a wave due to a change in it's speed when the wave passes from one medium to another at any angle other than 90° or 0°.

- When in outer space, light travels “c” as compared to the outer space medium. - When in a planet or sun gravitational field, light travels “c” as compared to a planet or sun medium.

When light leaves outer space and enters a planet or sun gravitational field, it changes direction due to changing speed as it moved from the outer space medium to the sun or planet medium. It changes again as it leaves the sun or planet medium and enters the space medium.

A gravitational lens is a type of lens that refracts light as it changes speed when it moves from being “c” compared to outer space to be moving “c” compared to inner space. The lens edge or boundary between outer space to inner space is the same lenses boundary that applies to any theory of gravitational lens and orbital object that is either pulled back into or escapes the gravity field.

That is as specified in Classical hierarchy Relativity.

All the eclipse photos and calculations show the refraction of light due to the change in direction of light as it changes speed as a result of passing from the outer space medium and goes through the sun’s gravitational medium. Space and time do not bend. Light is just refracted.

There it is. Proof of ChR using Eddington and other eclipse photos and calculations.

Copyright. Don E. Sprague 2007 edited 13 oct 2011

[quote]The galaxies we see in all directions are moving away from the Earth, as evidenced by their red shifts. Hubble's law describes this expansion.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html

[/quote]

Hubble and others observed a correlation between dim stars and red shift. Some redshift shows motion from the observer. They decided that other reasons for redshift do not apply, so redshift must be showing the expansion of the universe.

[quote]

Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift.[/quote]

There it is. It is worth repeating:

Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift.

[quote]The Hubble constant H is one of the most important numbers in cosmology because it may be used to estimate the size and age of the Universe. It indicates the rate at which the universe is expanding. Although [B]the Hubble "constant" is not really constant [/B]because it changes with time (and therefore should probably more properly be called the "Hubble parameter").

The Hubble constant H is one of the most important numbers in cosmology:- it is not constant because it changes with time- it is properly be called the "Hubble parameter"

The most important CONSTANT numbers in cosmology:- may be used to estimate the size and age of the Universe.- indicates the rate at which the universe is expanding.- is NOT CONSTANT- is based on redshift that is actually interstellar reddening.

[quote]In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that almost all galaxies appeared to be moving away from us. This phenomenon was observed as a redshift of a galaxy's spectrum. This redshift appeared to have a larger displacement for faint, presumably further, galaxies. Hence, the farther a galaxy, the faster it is receding from Earth.[/quote]

Redshift appeared to have a larger displacement for faint, presumably further, galaxies. Hence, the farther a galaxy, the faster it is SUPPOSEDLY receding from Earth.

The greater the distance light travels through space and is shifted, the greater is the shift.

[quote]Vesto Slipher, an astronomer at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, was finishing a detailed study of the night sky. He examined several of the faint, fuzzy "nebulae" that he saw in his telescope. He carefully measured the nebulae's spectra - the amount of light they emitted at different wavelengths. He found that the spectra of nearly all of them were "redshifted" - their light was redder than it should have been. Slipher knew that when an object's light was redshifted, it was moving away from Earth, and that the object's speed was proportional to the redshift. He calculated the nebulae's speeds, and found they were all moving away from us incredibly quickly:[url]http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/proj/advanced/hubble/[/url][/quote]

It wasn’t really Hubble who came up with the idea. He simply took or was given credit for Slipher’s work.

Two main question emerge.- Is there other proof of expanding universe other than Redshift? - NO- Could the redshift be from something other the object moving away? - YES

The distances between stellar bodies is not increasing proportional to the redshift.

Since empty space is not empty, there is a lot of stuff for light to go through and be shifted. Simply put, there is interactions and phenomena in the subjects of radiative transfer and physical optics which cause redshift.

The greater the distance light travels through stuff in space and is shifted, the greater is the shift... DUH.

Copyright 13 oct 2011

Doppler effect proves relative light speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

The diagrams at the linked page show how light waves outside the emitter medium are altered as compared to the waves inside the emitter medium. The animation needs to be expanded to include observers inside the car which are equally valid observers.

Consider a light source inside a car. The light inside the car is not Doppler shifted inside the car as long as the car is in uniform motion. The same light leaves the car and becomes Doppler shifted. The same applies to sound. Observations and measurements outside the car and inside the car are both equally valid. The car observer is moving relative the light and emitter so the light and sound is not shifted to them. The car and it's emitter is moving relative to the ground so the light and sound outside the car is shifted relative to them. That gives light that changes from not Doppler shifted to shifted. The same type of effect occurs with regard to the speed of light. Inside the car, the light goes c compared to the car. When the light leaves the car, it changes speed to go c as compared to the earth. The Galilean transformation applies to light. Doppler effect proves modified relative emitter theory and relative light speed.

and inside observers do not know the observations of the other because he does not allow all observers to have equally valid information of equally valid observers.

Copyright. Don E. Sprague 2007 13 oct 2011

There is no proof of an expanding universe other than Redshift that is actually Interstellar reddening.

Both provide longer wave length for the observer to determine,- is the red from Interstellar reddening from interference, or- is the red from moving emitter theory that cause the reddening.

We accept that some redshift is from the light source moving away. We accept blueshift is from light sources moving toward us. There are some blueshift and some redshift associated with light source movement toward and away from us. We should expect the numbers of the two to be similar. We should not expect the extent of the disproportionate large number of red to be from the light source moving away. We should expect that most of the red is from Interstellar reddening. We should also expect that some of the blueshift has been altered by Interstellar reddening

This is similar to the old concept of tired light.

Copyright. Don E. Sprague 2007 13 oct 2011

To explain the concept of how light and other things interact in a force field, I begin with a somewhat appropriate analogy. Consider the force at the center of a muddy river. A suspended tiny particle flows along almost unencumbered while a log on the surface flows along with more encumbrances. The analogy isn’t exact but substitutions should convey the concept. On a very long river with very uniform flow, a log will proceed at almost the same velocity of the water. Water and a tiny particle will flow past the log.-The flow/force of the river would seemingly not exist compared to the log.- A casual observer would not perceive motion of the water or the tiny particle.- A skilled observer with precise tools could observer the flow.

Consider that, like a log on a river, the earth moves because of forces. If the forces were removed, the earth would stop moving and spinning. That is because space is not empty. It is very thin. We basically say that light travels “c” in an observer’s frame of reference vacuum. Consider instead that light travels “c” compared to an observers force field vacuum.

With that we have:- A force field propels the earth. — The earth resists the force field so it somewhat lags the force field.- A force field that light travels within omnidirectional unencumbered.

The earth resists the force field so the earth movement is slightly behind the force field. Light speed is not actually relative to earth. It is relative to the earth force field.

This applies with relative speed of light. That is, light is relative to the frame or force field just as it is relative to different mediums.

There is no observable difference between a black hole described as having a center mass compared to one described as having a center of mass. You can not see a center mass but it can supposedly be measured. However; a center of mass can actually be measured through calculations.

If you have not read Einstein's paper on relativity, how can you argue it's merit? The following is an examination of Einstein's relativity.

What would most people think if I said that the truth is not true and I have proof? Well that is what Albert Einstein did in his paper.

Albert said: “For the present we shall assume the truth of the geometrical propositions, then at a later stage (in the general theory of relativity) we shall see that this truth is limited, and we shall consider the extent of its limitation.”R

Since Einstein's theories were first accepted, the science community has always said that his theories are the most accurate of all flawed theories. Obviously a flawed theory is just another wrong theory.

Einstein's flaw begins with his train thought experiment with a person who does not know they are on a moving train so the don't use all the facts when considering origin times of simultaneous lightning strike. When the person uses all the data, they can calculate the speed and distance of the train to verify the simultaneous time of the lightning strikes.

Einstein's singularity flaw is a result of the initial error introduced in section 9 of his paper. Eliminate the beginning of the error in section 9 results in elimination of the singularity flaw at the end.

Classical Mechanics (CM) was considered to be incomplete. After Einstein, CM ic considered to be flawed because it does not conform with Einstein's known wrong theory.

A texting driver is a dangerous driver. There is a simple way to disable all cell phones when they exceed the average walking speed. There is also a way to override the disable function to permit passengers and first responders to use their phones. There is a way to disable cell phones in use restricted areas such as schools.

t is best to find and eliminate the cause of a problem instead of treating the symptom or trying things and hoping they fix the problem. TELNET is said to be the first code installed on computers to enable remote takeover of a computer. Before 1983 when TELNET was first installed, it was impossible to hack a computer.

Cyber security requirements: There are four main general requirements and many specific detail requirements.1. Remove TELNET and all subsequent code that permits remote takeover or hacking. Closing existing openings that permit code activation when clicking on any link in an email or site.2. Enable remote communication but not remote control. Install access security managers that take business requests then hand off formatted dated. This enables business but blocks remote takeover hacking.3. Establish national and international public databases that provide real documentation about all end users, applications and sites. This enable individuals, and enterprises to control trading partner activity based on real data before enabling communication through their access security manager.4. Implement enhanced local and remote logon. Once the user is securely known to the local device, the remote session can be managed by secure computer to computer access manager control making legacy remote Ids and passwords obsolete.

Those requirements and more are addressed in the ENHANCED ONLINE COMPUTER ACCESS CYBER SECURITY SYSTEM.

SABRE, Initiated in 1953, the first online order and the first online order application.

IBM Information Network, the first network designed and implemented to interconnect all networks for any to any.

The popular descriptions of the history of the Internet are basically correct as far they go. They describe a DARPA and ARPANET centric path to the Internet. They do not include the first computer network which was initiated in 1949 or the first online order application which was initiated in 1953. The first file transfer was on SAGE which was running years before ARPANET was first imagined. The first online order application was running before the ARPANET was imagined. There are many things that are left out of the popular description of the Internet history.

The IBM Information Network (IBM IN), later named the IBM Global Network (IBM GN), was the first online service provider to focus on open multi-enterprise online interconnection of networks. In just a few years, IBM IN grew from nothing to the world leader and model for any to any online activity. By 1996 when it converted from IBM SNA to IP, the IBM GN had grown to be the world's largest most successful commercial online service provider.

The history of things like weather predictions has been filled with mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes in every field. They are like having a splinter in your finger. It feels good to get the splinter out and it sure feels good when your mistake is corrected. We basically know how the weather is predicted. Collect historical data and project into the future. Using the laws of physics and data about the time things happed at a place on earth enables projection of possible future weather events. The same applies to projections of bodies in space. It is widely accepted that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and the speed of light is the same everywhere. That believe is linked to Albert Einstein’s paper on the Theory of Relativity.

These two widely known quotes are referred to as the consequences of Special Relativity

The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.

The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

Actually, the consequence of Einstein’s papers is the belief that space and time are not constant. However; something about time and space must be constant because things like weather reports are getting more accurate. If time and space are variable, how do we get a constant when we multiply a variable time by a variable distance? It is obvious that everything we see is from the past location of objects in certain places. It is obvious that we can predict future locations of objects based on the past. If time and space has no meaning, then we could not have calendars. We could not land a craft on the moon if time and space were not constant.

Concerning the speed of light, every measurement of the speed of light has proven that it is constant relative to the frame of reference where it is measured.

w = c-v and W=v+w may be the two most important formula in the Theory of relativity.

A ladder that is too long to fit into a garage will supposedly fit when it is moving because it’s motion supposedly causes it to shrink.

This is purely a thought experiment. It is obviously impossible to actually conduct the imaginary experiment.

The experiment is always just as viewed from the garage. Suppose we consider the ladder as an equally valid frame for observation. Using Einstein’s process, the ladder is stationary with the garage moving. Thus, the garage shrinks instead of the ladder shrinking. In this case, the ladder is even longer than the garage so the ladder doesn't fit into the garage.

Now simultaneously conduct both the shrinking ladder and shrinking garage experiments with observers in both frames at the same time.

Speed of light from a flashlight on a bicycle, or on a train, or on any moving container:

Consider a person holding a flashlight inside a train. Most people accept that the light from the flashlight moves at the speed of light inside the train regardless of the speed or direction of the train. There is no Doppler shift inside the train. There is Doppler shift outside the train.

Then a person rides a bicycle along side the train. The light is passed from the train passenger to the bicycle rider. The speed of the flashlight didn't change. Since the speed of light is always shown to be c relative to the earth, the speed of light from the flashlight must have changed to be c relative to the ground. That must mean the speed of light was relative and additive to the train and changes to become relative and additive to the moving earth. After all, the earth is continually accelerating.

As I’m standing beyond a wall,It looks so strange and dauntingly tall.I can philosophically build a land,My own world is where I stand.I have all resource for my needs,With thoughts that serve as growing seeds.

My own pet theory, or part of it,Outside the wall is where I sit.My own pet theory, or part of it,Outside the wall is where I sit.